Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41758 of 2018 Applicant :- Anchal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Anchal, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 795/2015 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Radhika on 19.5.2015. After the expiry of a period of seven months from the date of marriage of the applicant, the wife of the applicant namely Radhika died in the night of 27/28.12.2015 in mysterious conditions. Without giving any information of the death of the wife to the family of the deceased or the Police, the body of the deceased was disposed of. As a consequence of the aforesaid, neither the inquest of the body of the deceased nor the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Two days after the occurrence had taken place, an F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.12.2015 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0795/2015 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons namely, Anchal (husband), Chanchal (Jeth), Chandan (Devar), Gunjan, Goldi (Nand), Poonam (Jethani) were nominated as the accused, whereas one person was nominated as unnamed accused. Subsequent to the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., 6 persons out of seven accused persons nominated in the F.I.R., have been enlarged on bail. Their bail orders are on the record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, submitted a charge-sheet dated 9.7.2016 against Anchal (husband), Chanchal (Jeth), Chandan (Devar), Smt. Sobha Wati (mother- in-law) of the deceased. Thereafter, the Police had submitted a supplementary charge sheet dated 13.7.2016 against Gunjan, Goldi (Nand), Poonam (Jethani). Thus, all the named accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Upon submission of the charge sheet dated 9.7.2016 i.e. the first charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 11.7.2016. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and according to the learned counsel for the applicant, sessions trial has now come into existence. However, he is unable to disclose the details of the sessions trial, which is pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 18.4.2016. As such, he has undergone more than two years and six months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next submitted that the deceased had died on account of a snake bite by a poisonous snake and thus, no criminality was committed by the applicant. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant who is the husband of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the occurrence has taken place just after the expiry of period of seven months from the date of marriage of the applicant. The deceased was a young girl. The failure on the part of the present applicant in not giving information of the death of the deceased to his in-laws, creates a serious doubt regarding the bonafide of the present applicant. Placing reliance, upon section 39 Cr.P.C., it is thus urged that since the death of the deceased had occurred within a period of seven years from the date of the marriage, it was obligatory on the present applicant to inform the Police Station concerned. The disposal of the dead body without intimation to the Police Station Concerned also creates a serious doubt regarding the bonafide of the applicant. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that since the trial has already been commenced, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the Court to expedite the trial itself.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Arshad